Best lefty off all time? My vote is Koufax!

Mark17 · #1 11-25-2021, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HistoricNewspapers

Heck, a side arm RH with primarily just a fastball, standing six one, WJ would see a steady diet of modern LH hitters who see 95 MPH EVERY SINGLE DAY. WJ would be no mystery whatsoever, and there would be zero reason to pitch him over Verlander, despite what the current flawed statistics say.

How do you know what kind of movement was on Walter's fastballs? It isn't just about catching up to speed.

Back in Walter's day, hitters were a lot better at making contact, due to the nature of the game. Yet, Walter led his league in strikeouts 12 times. Batters were choking up, just trying to punch the ball, and often they couldn't even make contact. Nobody was holding the bat down at the knob and swinging from the heels against Walter. So, I conclude his pitches must've been moving, sailing, sinking, tailing, or something.

HistoricNewspapers · #2 11-25-2021, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

How do you know what kind of movement was on Walter's fastballs? It isn't just about catching up to speed.

Back in Walter's day, hitters were a lot better at making contact, due to the nature of the game. Yet, Walter led his league in strikeouts 12 times. Batters were choking up, just trying to punch the ball, and often they couldn't even make contact. Nobody was holding the bat down at the knob and swinging from the heels against Walter. So, I conclude his pitches must've been moving, sailing, sinking, tailing, or something.

Yes indeed his pitches probably were, and why he had great success and why he is still an all time great...but none of that refutes what I said about Verlander and the Superior stuff that modern hitters see, and the superior pitchers that modern pitchers are....and the silly numbers Johnson put up both in raw form and compared to his peers that guys like Verlander cannot do due to superior hitters to face and superior pitchers to compete against.

HistoricNewspapers · #3 11-25-2021, 12:44 PM

Six of the top ten pitchers in WAR(including the top two) were born in:

1867
1887
1869
1887
1900
1880

Knowing the population information, the discrimination factor, and the world wide talent added since then, if that doesn't make one scratch their head, then there is nothing that will.

Geronimo was still running wild in the west while some of those guys were alive. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were still at large as late as 1908 to give a snap shot of how different the landscape in the US was...let alone the rest of the world where talent also comes from now.

To make matters even worse, a common top three player list of all-time is Ruth, Cobb, and Wagner...more guys born before the turn of the century.

WAR has its problems but it is one of the few that accounts for ERA, IP, and the peers, and is generally close enough. Generally.

Some objective information:

There are going to be other variables that will sway the information below, such as other modern sports taking athletes away more than pre war sports. However, pre war sports ALSO paid athletes in sports other than baseball. But when other societal factors from Pre war are added in, it mostly washes away that variable. Things in early 1900's such as kids having to work earlier in life to live and never even getting the chance to play sports, kids having Polio or other debilitating diseases that eliminated them from the player pool; and acute injuries back then such as broken bones or torn ligaments that can be fixed now, but back then were career enders(sometimes before the careers even started). Then also families simply not allowing their kid to play sports in PRE WAR because their belief was to get a stable career. That is completely opposite in modern times where the goal is to get a career in sports and get a scholarship or big contract.

Then one other big factor that hurts the early 1900 player pool is the fresh immigrants coming into the US that are eventually counted in the population below. Kids weren't coming from Italy through Ellis Island with baseball gloves in their hands...so even though they are counted in those populations, they simply were not viable candidates for MLB players(until their families started having kids IN the United States).

Putting that stuff as basically a wash, it could be rehashed over and over. Lets look at the reality of what is more certain.

First and foremost, I am going to take away the African American population from available human males in the pre war time. It isn't going to be a footnote or variable. They will be lumped off right off the bat since they were barred. By the 1970's African American players comprised 18% of MLB, so to take into account any plus/minus I am going to lump off 15% to leave some margin of error.

That is just African American. The Latin American population is still not deducted and they were banned for the most part too.

The below figures represent available male humans to form the player pool of potential players of which MLB had to populate their teams with.

I purposely used age 12-17 year old humans so as to eliminate the birth mortality as a factor or variable.

Here is the number of viable American Born humans available in the United States to form the player pool.

In 1890 there were 3.6 million males aged 12-17 in the United States .
In 1900 there were 4.5 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1910 there were 5.4 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1920 there were 6.2 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.

In 1950 there were 12.9 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.

In 1970 there were 24.3 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1980 there were 23.0 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.
In 1990 there were 20.0 million males aged 12-17 in the United States.

Babe Ruth's most direct peer group would be 1910 and Lefty Grove floating between the 1910 and 1920 group, and of course they would touch peers of the sandwhich groups.

Similarly, Rand Johnson's birth puts him floating between the 1970 and 1980 group.

The 1910 and 1920 group gives Lefty Grove 11.6 million peers.
The 1970 and 1980 group gives Randy Johnson 47.3 million peers.

I'm not sure those vast differences need to be expounded upon. I will differ to common sense and logic.

But as can be seen, Randy Johnson had four times as many peers to compete with/against from the available population compared to Grove.

People often make the point that there were only 16 teams, but that doesn't change how many 95 MPH pitchers were born or not. But even considering that, Johnson had four times as many peers and Grove had(16 teams compared to 28/30 for Johnson).....so less than half in Grove's favor, while Johnson is four times as many in his favor.

....that is just the United States! By 1970 and onward, the world stage got bigger and bigger as time went on...and of course the last ten years the world stage is at its biggest point.

In 2017 29.8% of MLB players were born outside of the United States. That is another 13 million peers that Johnson had to contend with.

So in reality;

Johnson had 60 million peers in which to compete against and separate himself from.

Grove had 11 million peers in which to compete against and separate himself from.

We know for a fact that these numbers produced taller and heavier players. We know that fastball velocity has been steadily increasing over time and that size can help velocity. We know that command has stayed at least even, but in reality has improved with the science of mechanics.

In reality, half the league in the early pre war years most likely does not even get drafted now, let alone make the minor leagues or having any chance at MLB. A five foot five 130 pound ground ball hitter with a subpar arm does not get a job on a college team now.

MLB could expand its league to twice the size right now and still have more overall talent than 1920.

I'm not sayings its impossible that Babe is still the best player ever, or that WJ at 6 foot one with really one pitch is the best pitcher ever(I have a hard time saying that part seriously)...but looking objectively we see factually how the height and weight has changed over time. We know the fastball MPH has risen steadily in the last 30 years, and that size and selective breeding does lead to increased velocity.

We see the elite pitchers of modern times being bigger, throwing harder(with movement), having as good or better command, and better breaking pitches.

I'm not certain everyone watches these pitchers closely anymore otherwise they would not be so set in their stance of the older guys being as good.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I don't have a personal stake in this, but am offering information that I hardly ever see taken into account. Factual measureable information.

Given two pitchers, if I know one is 9 inches taller, throws harder, has a littler better command, and the mental acuity to dominate for two decades...there is nothing that would point any level headed person to choose to take the lesser of those two physical attributes. That isn't even accounting for the peers. Just what that person can provide to a team trying to get hitters out.

i

Peter_Spaeth · #4 11-25-2021, 01:08 PM

It seems apparent that like every other human athletic endeavor, baseball has evolved and on an absolute level, all things being equal, today's players are "better." Perhaps the disparity is a little less than in track and field etc. because a great deal of skill is involved in baseball that is somewhat distinct from pure athleticism, but I don't think there's any denying the part that involves athleticism.

I guess to me it's an obvious point but one that doesn't really detract from the players of the past, if one evaluates them on a relative, era-neutral basis which I think is legitimate. I don't really care if Lefty Grove as he was then would be mediocre if fast forwarded 8 decades. It's meaningless.

A fair question is why some people seem to have such a nostalgia bias that they resist the arguments about advances in athleticism, and seem to think baseball is immune from that.

BobC · #5 11-26-2021, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It seems apparent that like every other human athletic endeavor, baseball has evolved and on an absolute level, all things being equal, today's players are "better." Perhaps the disparity is a little less than in track and field etc. because a great deal of skill is involved in baseball that is somewhat distinct from pure athleticism, but I don't think there's any denying the part that involves athleticism.

I guess to me it's an obvious point but one that doesn't really detract from the players of the past, if one evaluates them on a relative, era-neutral basis which I think is legitimate. I don't really care if Lefty Grove as he was then would be mediocre if fast forwarded 8 decades. It's meaningless.

A fair question is why some people seem to have such a nostalgia bias that they resist the arguments about advances in athleticism, and seem to think baseball is immune from that.

Great points Peter. No question today has advances in athleticism, but agree with your view on how to not also try to interpret yesterday's athletes based on that modern athleticism alone.

Snowman · #6 11-26-2021, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It seems apparent that like every other human athletic endeavor, baseball has evolved and on an absolute level, all things being equal, today's players are "better." Perhaps the disparity is a little less than in track and field etc. because a great deal of skill is involved in baseball that is somewhat distinct from pure athleticism, but I don't think there's any denying the part that involves athleticism.

I guess to me it's an obvious point but one that doesn't really detract from the players of the past, if one evaluates them on a relative, era-neutral basis which I think is legitimate. I don't really care if Lefty Grove as he was then would be mediocre if fast forwarded 8 decades. It's meaningless.

A fair question is why some people seem to have such a nostalgia bias that they resist the arguments about advances in athleticism, and seem to think baseball is immune from that.

I can fully appreciate the nostalgic aspect and relative value of players like Walter Johnson, Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, and others. There's a distinct beauty to the early years of baseball that will almost assuredly never return. There's something special about how Ruth changed the game and became the icon he did. After all, it's why I collect vintage cards, and why every set I own or am chasing is from well before I was ever even born.

The part I have difficulty with is it seems that many people in this thread, and elsewhere on this forum, appear to be operating under the delusion that not only were those players incredible relative to their own eras, but that they would still be elite today. And some even take it a step further with claims that these early players were somehow actually better as if baseball talent has somehow magically devolved in the modern era. This is of course purely delusional. If people wish to believe in fantasies, who am I to rob them? But if you want to have an honest conversation about who the "better" player was, Randy Johnson or Walter Johnson, it's a borderline laughable comparison. Walter Johnson might not have even made the league today, let alone be a star (though I'd like to believe he would have at least made a roster). That's how much baseball has evolved since he was pitching. That's the reality. Now if we instead ask the question of "who was the best lefty relative to their peers?", then we can begin to formulate arguments that include guys like Lefty Grove (and Warren Spahn still doesn't even enter into the conversation at that, in my opinion, unless we again change the question to, "who provided the most cumulative career value relative to their peers?"). But this discussion is about who was the best in the absolute sense. And in that sense, you're completely delusional if you think Lefty Grove would outpitch Randy Johnson in some sort of fictional pitch-off competition. Yet there is no shortage of people here who actually believe just that. This is why I, and others, push back. If you want to rephrase the question in the OP to one that is more interesting to you, then go ahead and ask a different question. But as stated, the question is simple. Who was the best? You lawyers can try to start twisting around definitions of basic words like "best", pretending as if it's actually ambiguous here, or as if it could be redefined in the context of cumulative career value relative to one's peers or some such nonsense. But none of those qualifiers were posed in the original question in this thread. So you don't get to add them and redefine what best means. Everyone knows what it means to be the best. The best basketball player to ever play is not some guy who was above average for 40 years, or some guy who absolutely dominated against a bunch of 6 foot tall white dudes who shot 35% from the field launching "jump shots" with two hands. The best sprinter of all time is not some guy who beat his peers by the largest gap, it's the guy with the fastest time ever recorded. Michael Phelps is the best swimmer of all time because he has more gold medals and world records than anytime else, regardless of whether or not some other swimmer may have a larger total trophy shelf adorned with enough bronze to make 14 statutes of David. And the best pie of all time is not rhubarb, it is clearly pumpkin.

If you guys want to have a different discussion, then I suggest phrasing it as such. But only a lawyer could pretend that 'best' actually means something other than best or that "it depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is."

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lefty Grove = Lefty Groves... And Lefty's 1921 Tip Top Bread Card	leftygrove10	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	10-15-2019 01:55 AM
62 koufax ,59 mays,72 mays vg ends monday 8 est time sold ended	rjackson44	Live Auctions - Only 2-3 open, per member, at once.	3	05-22-2017 06:00 PM
Final Poll!! Vote of the all time worst Topps produced set	almostdone	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	22	07-28-2015 08:55 PM
Long Time Lurker. First time poster. Crazy to gamble on this Gehrig?	wheels56	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	17	05-17-2015 05:25 AM
It's the most wonderful time of the year. Cobb/Edwards auction time!	iggyman	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	68	09-17-2013 01:42 AM